Friday, March 16, 2012


I came across this on Wikipedia. Course we all know that anyone can put anything on Wiki and anyone can edit it as well.

In 2007, Petitioner Jacie Conaway, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha,[3] filed a similar action against San Bernardino County, California.[4] The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

"Resolved to the satisfaction of all parties" is quite deceiving. It gives the appearance that the petitioner won the case. Wrong, didn't happen. In fact the attorney for Conaway basically walked away from the case. Thousands of public records were pulled and nothing was found, no evidence to support the accusations made in the lawsuit.

Here is a link to the SB Sun about this:

"A lawsuit against the agency alleging improperly hurried euthanasia appeared ready to be withdrawn by the filing attorney."

Why do they keep beating a dead horse? Investigation after investigation by everyone and nothing has come of any of them. Why do these activists want to waste taxpayer money, money that could go toward improving Devore but instead staff time is taken pulling records over and over. Taking staff time only hurts the shelter animals. How many investigations will it take to satisfy these activists and convince them that they are the ones doing the most harm to the Devore animals?


  1. I read about the dogs suffering frostbite at this place. But as I read thru the postings one thing became clear, the People for Paws Network, the ones making the accusation refused to release any documentation to sustain their complaint. Seemed a bit odd.

    Another think I have recently noticed, there is a person, Christine Haslet, who really has it bad for Devore and the staff (seems some more than others, perhaps she is just lonely, if you know what I mean).

    I found that she has started several facebook pages to make the appearance of a large number of people complaining about this animal shelter. Funny thing is, she lives in San Diego and I'll bet has never been to the place.

    I did get a laugh at her though, it seems she can dish it out but when someone challenges her on her facts on one of her facebook pages, she suddenly becomes very defensive and rude.

    I guess her motto is, don't waste my time by telling me the facts, it doesn't matter to me. I know what I know and my minds already made up.

    I guess if you throw enough shit against the wall, some of it might stick, but on thing is for sure, it will sure stink.

  2. Odd you say? If they had proof, they would be showing it. They have none. I just wonder what they did to this poor dog trying to make their point. I did read that they said their vet said it was frostbite and when questioned, he said he made an educated guess. Well, what kind of vet is that? No tests to see if it might be something else? Again I read that, have no idea if it is true. The Devore vet said it was definitely not frostbite.

    And oh yes, the "Savior" Christine. She likes to cherry pick from Devore. Many more of the cute fluffy dogs than the pit bulls. I did get a public records request on what breeds were put down and guess what? Rarely does the small cute breeds get euthanized. However, they are always advertised as being on "death row". Fat chance those are the ones people want and adopt, they aren't on death row.

    I see all the pages on Facebook too, all the same people and I guess they think we can't figure it out. Well, we have their number and so does the Board of Supervisors, this has been pointed out to them.

    They care nothing for the facts or the truth. That's not why they are there. They care nothing for saving lives either or they would realize the damage they are doing. It is a play to force euthanasia up so they can take over Devore and make it "No Kill". But that won't happen, there's too many who are speaking quietly to the Supervisors, many more than they know about. Those who are against the activists have to stay out of the limelight for fear of reprisal from these activists. And the Supervisors aren't impressed that good citizens are being intimidated by these activists either. They are being given enough rope to hang themselves and they are doing a good job of it. They are their own worst enemies.

  3. I have followed these activists and am guilty of posting on their pages. Once you pointed out the lack of evidence to back up the accusations, I tried to find that evidence. I found none myself. This blog is giving me cause to stop and reflect on all of this. Although I feel that Devore can do better, I now have a different view. I do grasp now that these accusations are doing more harm than good. Not that I am joining you completely, but I intend to change my ways about talking about Devore. I will be one of those telling people how good it is in order to get more people in there to adopt. This seems like a much better solution.

  4. Thanks Anon, there are always two sides to the story. I do hope this blog offers credible links that you can trust, I think it does.

    And you're right, the better solution is to work with the shelters to PR them to the public as wonderful places to come and adopt. To do otherwise, like these activists, only hurts the shelter animals. They aren't thinking in terms of helping, only in terms of their own agendas.

  5. what you fail to realize is they, the Christine types of the world, don't really care about the cause (in this case the animals). They are only interested in raising money at the expense of someone else. In this case, the expense of the animals.

    Listen to her on the radio, every other statement she makes is about 'donating' money to her 'cause'. She posts about the checks she receives from Adopt a Pet. She keeps pushing her own business, which she touts as one of the finest. But from what I have seen, there are many negative posts about her business and her personally.

    Now I see that she is pushing for everyone to support her on some committee she wants to have formed. Based upon what I have seen of her posts, she appears to be only looking for a new gig at the tax payers expense. If you read the following of her guru, Nathan 'no kill' Winograd, if you would only spend more money you could solve the problem of pet overpopulation. Christine seems to be only seeing $$$$$$$ and wants her piece of the 'no kill' pie.

    Just my 2 cents, no pun intended.

  6. That has been pointed out before, from the very beginning even before she was a non profit. Everyone is wanting their piece of the pie, look at the transport issue and how that has become a scam.

  7. take a closer look at her. She claims to be a non profit, but doesn't show up on any non-profit databases. Can you say FRAUD (and this could be taken in more ways than one).

  8. Wouldn't doubt it. I will take a look and if you have any links please forward them. Thanks.


Remember no accusations without proof. Rant if you will, it won't be published.